DEBATE OR UNDERSTAND
.
A friend and I have been stuck in a tedious dialog for over a
year now. I began to wonder why he
seemed so obsessed with relentlessly contradicting me. He didn’t just criticize every post on a particular
topic, but could not let the subject go…agreeing to disagree. Concerned for his emotional health, I asked if
he was aware of how odd his compulsion seemed.
Hoping to help him identify the source of his peculiar fixation, I ask,
“Are you OK?” He responded by sharing
the above quotation. When he did, I
finally understood the problem, but it was not what I expected.
.
The same interpersonal problem we were having is the same one
the world is having and the United
States is having internally. It is the
conflict between victory and understanding.
.
Our Facebook dialog is a perfect example. He was having a debate. I, on the other hand, was simply trying to
convey personal thoughts and feelings. In
my mind, winning or losing was not an issue.
I was not competing.
.
Most of the time, when I post something on the Web, it is “me”
expressing myself. Unlike the purpose of
an argument or a debate, my goal is communication not winning. When it comes to rating my posts, I base a scale
that judges how well the ideas or the emotional content gets delivered. The evaluation ranges from perfect, to OK, and
at the bottom…not good. Honestly, I seldom,
if ever, reach the gold metal first place I’m shooting for.
.
Nevertheless, my posts and my subsequent responses are
attempts to clarify meaning or express emotion, never if ever, to achieve victory
over my detractors. One day, I may
present a thoroughly developed case for thinking and feeling the way I do, but
I am holding that in reserve. The one-upmanship
of a debate does not lend itself to the mutual growth and understanding. Understanding requires a less competitive form
of interchange. That is why I found my
friends unending arguments boring at best, and annoying at their worst.
.
The thing that makes social media attractive is more than
access to information but the opportunity to broadcast and receive our own personal
thoughts and feelings. Even though, I often
use corroborating evidence to reinforce my ideas, I am disappointed when I
receive a shared impersonal video rebuttal, by some “expert,” instead of a
direct contrasting view from the actual person. Such sources can support what you think or
feel, but they cannot tell me why you feel or think as you do. It is the opposite of intimate self-expression. The most effective means of understanding and
being understood is unmediated personal exchanges of ideas and feelings.
.
Unfortunately, growth and understanding were not the aim of
my persistent friendly critic. He expected
me to comeback with some powerful rebuttal, loaded with the video experts. Instead, I unwittingly answered with more precisely
worded expressions of my inner thoughts and feelings. Seeing my responses as weak arguments, rather
than self-disclosures, he habitually felt compelled to shoot down my responses as
unreasoned foolishness.
.
When I finally realized the actual nature of our conflict, I wrote
him, saying something like, “I'm sorry, but I have been trying to tell you and
other possible readers, either how I feel or what I think about a topic. While I value confrontations that broaden my
understanding, no amount of argumentation can change my personality; because what
I write is an expression of how God has shaped me. You're debating. I'm divulging.”
.
Sadly, we both missed the cause for our wearisome and
monotonous dialog. Our conversational goals
were different. He sought victory, while
I sought examination. My goal was not
winning, but interpersonal understanding. I believe, as a rule of human
interaction, be they personal, intra-national, or international it is true:
.
You can win without understanding or understand without winning,
but you cannot have both. My preferred
alternative is, make understanding what I seek to win.
4 comments:
Now John, Your blog actual proves that you WANT to win the "argument", "debate" as you have presented the discourse of a year in a one sided fashion, totally void of my responses and spiritual rebuttals. By simply focusing on me and refusing to respond to the substance of the disagreements, you redirect to the messenger and avoid the meat of the matter, thereby skirting the real issues. Remember, my responses have been an appeal to a brother, nothing more, nothing less.
Hi Jeff,
Do you believe I have misidentified the impasse blocking a mutually agreement to disagree? If so, it would be helpful for you to pinpoint the underlying nature of your disapproval. Without isolating the bedrock source of your criticism, I am left with only two obvious conclusions. 1) You personally disapprove of me, as a person, or 2) I represent something you must oppose. Unfortunately, neither you nor I can do anything about the first possibility. That requires the divine intervention of the Holy Spirit. The second possibility actually falls to the “thing” I represent to you. While I would enjoy knowing what that “thing” is, I am not your problem, that “thing” I represent is the problem. As such, I may only distract you from dealing directly with that issue. I’m praying that you will find peace with the discomfort I directly or indirectly causing you.
We have had two disagreements John. The earlier involved radical Islam and how we should handle immigration. The second involves your denigrating FB posts about our current president. What are you trying to accomplish with these posts? Are you being led by the Holy Spirit? Check out the fist bumping responses of those who have responded to your Trumpty Dumpty posts, those whom you are influencing. Check out your friend Bashir's nearly every other FB post denigrating our president with posts of his swearing in with a Pinocchio nose and such. Frankly, I am shocked by your inability to grasp my concerns as to how we, as Christians, are to respond to "Kings and all who are in authority." I won't bore you with a plethora of scriptures supporting my contentions. What would Jesus do? Think he would have posted "Herody Dummy Dumpty" pics in social media/Jerusalem times re. then King Herod or Roman Emperor Titus (Tity Dumpty). No, no disapproval of you personally, but rather that "thing" of your seeming support of those violently and constantly undermining the Trump presidency, whether Never Trumpers, main stream media, Stephen Colbert, SNL, Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, God mockers, etc. I just believe you are on the wrong side of history here, not to speak of the wrong side of the whole counsel of scripture as to how we, as believers are to deal with authority.
Jeff,
Congratulations, you win.
One day I hope you will understand.
Post a Comment